The Trump administration is facing calls to release a federal definition of ultra-processed foods (UPF), with more than 70 public health experts and other signatories urging the administration to make the proposal public.
Dariush Mozaffarian, director of Tufts University's Food is Medicine Institute, told Newsweek that the group had written a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is reviewing the proposed definition submitted by the the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) in August.
"This is one of the most consequential food actions FDA can take in decades. It would be a big win for Americans," he said.
In the letter, leading health and nutrition experts urge the OMB to release the proposed federal definition of ultra-processed foods without further delay, adding pressure on the agency to move the process forward.
Helping Consumers Make Better Choices
They argue that ultra-processed foods account for nearly 60 percent of calories consumed by U.S. adults and 70 percent among children, and cite research linking their consumption to health risks. They say a national definition would help consumers make informed choices, support consistent, science-based policies across states, and reduce compliance costs for businesses facing differing state standards.
The signatories also stress that publishing a definition would not automatically restrict food sales, impose new requirements on manufacturers or retailers, or increase food prices. They argue that the government should establish a transparent, scientifically grounded standard and say the process should not be held up by special interests.
...
The group expected more than 100 signatories by Friday, October 23, when it planned to meet with OMB officials to press for the document's release.
The push puts a spotlight on the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda ahead of November’s midterm elections. Releasing the definition before the elections could demonstrate progress on a key MAHA priority: tackling ultra-processed foods. It also comes amid what Mozaffarian described as "increasing disappointment among swing voters with MAHA."
"The federal UPF definition is being held up by intense industry pressure on the White House," Mozaffarian wrote in an email to Newsweek. "HHS really wants the rule released before the election, and the more public pressure we have, the better the chances."
"We and others have heard that intense industry pressure from major industry trade associations and multinational food companies is being placed on the White House to not release the definition," Mozaffarian added. "This is a shame and goes against the government’s responsibility to inform consumers about the safety of their food."
The allegation that industry pressure is delaying the definition has not been independently established.
Newsweek contacted the OMB, USDA and HHS via email and the FDA via online form on Thursday for comment.
What Is Ultra-Processed Food?
...
Ultra-processed foods are generally understood to be industrially manufactured products containing ingredients and additives used to alter taste, texture, appearance or shelf life.
Examples can include sugary drinks, packaged snacks, instant noodles and some ready meals. However, there is no universally accepted definition, and classification systems differ over which products qualify.
The widely used NOVA food classification system categorizes foods according to the nature, extent and purpose of their processing. Researchers are investigating links between UPF consumption and health problems, although studies do not always establish that processing itself causes disease.
Processing is not inherently harmful: techniques such as freezing and pasteurization can preserve food and improve safety. Some processed products also provide important nutrients.
Why Is the Definition Delayed?
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made reducing Americans' consumption of ultra-processed foods a central theme of the MAHA agenda
The Department of Health and Human Services announced on August 10 that the FDA and USDA had submitted a proposed federal definition for review, stating:
"Although research has linked high consumption of UPFs to preventable chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and heart disease, the absence of a standardized federal definition has limited research consistency across the federal government. The proposed definition incorporates feedback from thousands of stakeholders, including industry, consumer organizations, researchers, and members of the public."
At the time, Kennedy stated: "Nearly 60 percent of the American diet is made up of ultra-processed foods, and childhood obesity now affects more than one in five American children. We cannot reverse America’s chronic disease epidemic without transforming our food system. These historic actions bring greater transparency to what’s in our food and stronger science to federal nutrition policy. President Trump and I promised to Make America Healthy Again, and today we are turning that promise into policy.”
A common definition could help standardize research and inform future nutrition policies. However, publishing a definition would not automatically ban products or impose new requirements on manufacturers. Any regulatory changes would depend on subsequent policy decisions.
The proposal remains listed as pending review on the government's regulatory tracking website.
What Could It Mean for Americans?
A federal definition could provide a consistent framework for research and future discussions about nutrition guidance, food labeling and government nutrition programs.
Public health advocates argue that clearer criteria would help researchers better understand the potential health effects of UPFs. Industry representatives have raised concerns about how the category might be defined and used.
The letter's signatories are asking the administration to release the proposal so researchers, consumers and policymakers can examine its contents.
Whether it will be published before the midterm elections remains unclear.
Contact Newsweek editor on this story: Edward Pearcey.